Bartlett v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 01 February 1915
• Docket Number: No. 11392.,11392.
• Citation: 175 S.W. 79,188 Mo. App. 144
• Parties: BARTLETT v. GARRETT et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

175 S.W. 79

188 Mo. A. 144

BARTLETT v. GARRETT et al.

No. 11392.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

February 1, 1915.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

Action by Charles W. Bartlett against William L. Garrett and others. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Garrett and certain other defendants, and they appeal. Reversed as to defendant Garrett and others; as to defendant William Taylor, reversed and remanded for new trial.

R. M. Sheppard, of Joplin, J. P. McCammon, of St. Louis, and J. T. Craig, of Joplin, for appellants. Langsdale & Howell, of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

The defendant Fidelity & Casualty Company is a corporation located at Springfield, Mo., and Hines, Montgomery, Ramsey, Coffman, Garrett, Schneider, W. & J. Taylor, McCammon, Boyd, McJimsey, and Austin, the other defendants, are directors. Plaintiff claims that they employed him and agreed to pay him $5,000 "to locate a bank or trust company in Kansas City which would lend them, or a part of them, $75,000, on certain terms and conditions"; that, in pursuance of said employment, he did find a bank and a trust company, either of which would make the loan; that afterwards defendants obtained the loan from the bank, and then refused to pay him the sum agreed upon for his services. At the close of his case plaintiff voluntarily dismissed as to the casualty company and Ramsey, and the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants Coffman, Hine, and Montgomery for want of evidence against them. The case was then submitted to the jury as against Garrett, Schneider, W. & J. Taylor, McCammon, Boyd, Malmsey, and Austin, and a verdict rendered for plaintiff.

Stating first our view of the legal aspect of the case, we think that if one is employed by another to find a third party who will make a certain loan to him, and such employe finds a third party able, willing, and ready to make the loan, he may recover the compensation agreed upon for the service.

In this case the casualty company was being organized by the other defendants (except William Taylor, who came in afterwards), as directors thereof. Defendant Austin was authorized to' sell stock, he being paid a commission, and certain stock had been sold by him, but there was not yet sufficient showing of capital to justify permission from the state insurance commissioner to open to the public for business. The directors set about to borrow $75,000, and made an effort in St. Louis and failed. They then came to Kansas City, and succeeded in borrowing $75,000 of the National Reserve Bank, on their note at 6 per cent. due in six months, secured by $100,000 of the stock. The note was given for $77.500; the $2,500 excess represented what was termed "a commission" to the bank.

Plaintiff's claim is that he procured the bank, and that such bank would make the loan, and that he so notified defendants, and that they thereupon accepted his service by borrowing the money in the manner stated. We think that, as against defendant William Taylor, there was evidence to sustain the verdict. There was evidence tending to show that he obtained plaintiff's services to find a bank which would lend the required sum of money, and that he promised to pay plaintiff for that service the sum of $5,000, if he pro-Cured the loan.

It is true that the bank officers denied that plaintiff had anything to do with the loan, or that he in any way influenced their action. But, when a verdict is attacked on the ground of not being supported by evidence, we are more concerned with what the evidence is on the part of him who gains the verdict than with the evidence for the loser.

But, as to the other defendants against whom the verdict was rendered, we think there was no substantial evidence whatever that they had any contractual relations with plaintiff directly, or that they authorized Taylor to represent them. Plaintiff himself, in testifying in his own behalf, stated that he never spoke to, or communicated with, either of them, until near a year after the transaction. These defendants were themselves examined as witnesses, and each denied authority for Taylor to represent them. Defendant Garrett had heard Taylor say that he believed defendant Austin (who was selling the stock) could get the money desired through plaintiff, if the directors would pay the commission to plaintiff and Austin; but he refused to have anything to do with it.

To sustain the verdict against these defendants, other than Taylor, would be to say that business men may be held to have contracted to pay a large amount to secure a loan of money, on conjecture or surmise drawn from the mere fact that they obtained a loan. As just stated, plaintiff makes no pretense of dealing with any one besides Taylor. It seems never to have occurred to...